- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges
by bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > > > > > > http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990705S0003 > > > > > > I hope that the root servers are not turned over to this ICANN > > > group. I believe this to be a disaster in waiting and will not remedy > > > the problem as it exists. > > > > > > Henry > > > > As I understand it, the root servers will stay put, > > where they are and operated by the current group of operators. > > That is not entirely true. I'd be interested in your thoughts on why you think that there will be a change in the root server operators or placement of servers. As an operator I've been paying attention to this and think I understand whats going on. > > Methinks the reporter here has a serious misunderstanding of > > the issues. As to the "problem that exists", I can only hope that > > you are right and we only have a single "problem". > > I didn't see the reporter injecting commentary in the article, instead > sticking to objective facts and quotations, so I am curious as to why you > believe they have a "serious misunderstanding" of the issues. mixing a proposed domain registration fee and coordination of root servers seem to be orthaginal issues. While the "objective facts and quotations" may be accurate, they may not have any relevence to each other. Looks a lot like a hash to me... > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > Patrick Greenwell Telocity http://www.telocity.com > (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f > "This is our time. It will not come again." > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ --bill

1 0

911 doesn't work, try a FAX
by Sean Donelan 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

At the last NANOG several folks chuckled when I pointed out that many real emergency plans include sending a FAX as a backup when the phones don't work. I thought I would pass this news story along. http://www.cjonline.com/stories/070399/com_phonesout.shtml -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

8 7

Re: 911 doesn't work, try a FAX
by John Fraizer 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

At 02:22 AM 7/4/99 -0500, Joe Shaw wrote: > > >This is why HAM radios and the appropriate licenses can come in very >handy, especially in cases of emergency or natural disaster. Does anyone >in the business use RF for backup communications? You mean we're not ALL licensed amateurs? ;-) ------------ John Fraizer ------------ mailto:john.fraizer@EnterZone.Net http://www.EnterZone.Net http://www.EZ-Hosting.Net http://www.EZ-IP.Net ------------------------------------------ | __ _ | | | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice | | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU | | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation | | | | ------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: 911 doesn't work, try a FAX
by Sean Donelan 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

michael(a)memra.COM (Michael Dillon) writes: >So as part of your New Year's Eve plans this year, all NOCs in buildings >with elevators should make arrangements with their building >superintendents for one of those keys that allows you to lock an elevator >open at a specific floor. I've done this before. Even have a 500ft spool of terminated telephone cable from Radio Shack just for running down hallways and shafts. However, its a really bad idea. The maintenance key on the elevator overrides the fireman(person)'s recall circuit, and cause problems if a real emergency happens in the building. Besides, don't you people have butt sets anyway? I'm a bit disappointed no one picked up the real lesson about using FAX as a means to distribute emergency notifications. The lack of receipt confirmation in the Topeka case. Most EOC's have multiple ways to reach the media from the emergency alert system (This is a test...), or dispatching a police cruiser to courier the message to the media. If you use a 'BlastFax' product to distribute your media alerts, you need to check the log to see which ones failed. You also need to follow up with key editors and station managers to make sure someone actually picked up the fax off the machine. If you can't make contact via one method, you try the next contact method. There are lots of different contact methods. Each of their advantages, and their drawbacks. HAM radio works better during the recovery phases than during the alert/warning phase. Even radio networks like STORMWATCH have activation problems for unexpected severe weather. Satellite phones have vulnerability in their earth-based switches. AP newswire and CNN do better on national/international events, but aren't so good for communicating with smaller interests. Even the military systems have had interesting failures. Most of us are aware of the vulnerabilities affecting pagers, cell phones, wirelines, etc. The goal is to have a mix of contact methods, in the hope they won't all be out of service at the same time. One key thing to remember about using less common communication methods is the difficulty of training your staff on a long-term basis. If you've never acted as an observer for a disaster or disaster drill, you won't believe how confused even trained people become trying to use some of these systems. Things which change how they are used when in 'backup' mode (e.g. phones on the PBX which switch to direct lines when the PBX fails) are very confusing because they 'work' but not how people are used to them working. KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid is the rule. Although folks keep referring to what they are doing on December 31, that really isn't a good enough reason to spend the time or effort on this. Some other disaster is just going to come along and do you in on some other date you weren't expecting. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: NSI/Internic operational announcement list
by Dean Robb 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

At 07:18 PM 7/3/99 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote: >On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Dean Robb wrote: > >> >> Now, Paul...you KNOW that customer service and NSI are mutually exclusive >> terms. >> >> I'm still waiting for their 'Internet Ombudsman' to be named. How long can >> it take to find someone to do it? > >Is this a position where someone gets to take all the comments and >criticisms as to how NSI is screwing up and pass them along? > >Sign me up. :-) That's the theory, anyway. It was announced a couple of weeks ago on the DOMAIN-POLICY list by an open letter from the new CEO of NSI (whose name escapes me at the moment). Supposedly this person will have unfettered access to the Top Brass and will bring to them issues we in the user world have as well as solicit feedback on NSI plans. I'm taking a very wait-and-see attitude on this one - I've heard far too much hot air from NSI to believe it until I see it. "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of ICANN?" Dean Robb Owner, PC-EASY (757) 495-EASY [3279] On-site computer repairs, upgrades and consultations Lead SimOps columnist/reviewer on http://WWW.TheGamers.Net

2 1

We're the phone company, we don't need route diversity
by Sean Donelan 05 Jul '99

05 Jul '99

nathan(a)robotics.NET (Nathan Stratton) writes: >To make things worse, many of the new CLECs don't have adiquite trunking >to the 911 tandems or PSAPs. Many of my CLEC customers try to only run the >minimum number or channels to get approved. Most of them also run all of >the 911 over the same circuit or if they have more then one, out of the >same MUX. In the Topeka, Kansas SWBT failure, one of the CLECs did issue a press release pointing out their network was not affected by the software problems on SWBT's telco switch. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990702/ks_kmc_tel_1.html There are a lot of CLECs with very poor procedures and preparedness, and 9-1-1 trunks have interesting issues due to their very high visibility and requirements. Most CLECs rely 100% on the ILEC to provide 9-1-1 tandem services. But don't assume the ILECs are as good as they like to imply. For example, I posted about a Southwestern Bell outage on May 27 in central Missouri on NANOG earlier. SWBT filed their Final Outage Report with the FCC last week. A fiber cut near Lake St. Louis on the main I-70 cross-state highway took out operator, inter-switch, long-distance (inter and intra lata) service for 21 Central Offices and 13 9-1-1 answering points affecting 205,000 customers for 5 hours. SWBT's analysis indicates the root cause for the outage was a contractor laying new fiber for another carrier, damaging SWBT's fiber. However, it turns out SWBT has *ZERO* route diversity for this 300 mile route in their network. SWBT has no plans on adding diversity on this route by either installing new cable, or swapping or leasing space on a different carrier's system. As a customer of SWBT, just try to find out about these 'minor' challenges in SWBT's network. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

1 0

Re: (ICANN) STATEMENT ON HACKING OF NETWORK SOLUTIONS' SERVERS
by J.D. Falk 04 Jul '99

04 Jul '99

On 07/04/99, Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> wrote: > <plonk> You know, it pisses me off to no end that it's not currently possible to disagree with how ICANN is trying to run things without being lumped in with the kooks. If anybody has any suggestions for a change in tactics, please let me know. And again, if you'd like to see what I /do/ have reasons for these views other than unreasoning paranoia, please contact me off-list. ---------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk(a)cybernothing.org> =========--------- | "It's hard to keep your head above water | | when you're up to your ass in alligators." | | --Crow T. Robot, MST3K "Swamp Diamonds" | ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========----

1 0

(ICANN) STATEMENT ON HACKING OF NETWORK SOLUTIONS' SERVERS
by David Alejandro Hernandez Alonso 04 Jul '99

04 Jul '99

fyi http://www.icann.org/icann-pr02july99.htm ICANN PRESS RELEASE (7-2-99): INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS (ICANN) STATEMENT ON HACKING OF NETWORK SOLUTIONS' SERVERS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS (ICANN) STATEMENT ON HACKING OF NETWORK SOLUTIONS' SERVERS Marina Del Rey, CA (July 2, 1999) - For several hours earlier today, access to the server which hosts the ICANN Web site was disrupted. The information on ICANN's Web site is administrative in nature and was not damaged. We have since been made aware of a concerted effort to tamper with some of the servers currently operated by Network Solutions, Inc. of Herndon, Virginia. The incident, which is potentially criminal, has been referred to the appropriate law enforcement officials. An investigation into the source of the attack, and the manner in which it was carried out, is currently underway. While there is no evidence that the servers under its control have been harmed, ICANN is taking the appropriate measures to protect its equipment located at the Information Sciences Institute of the University of Southern California. ICANN condemns this action as an attempt to undermine the stability of the domain name system and will cooperate fully with any investigation into the matter

5 8

Re: 911 doesn't work, try a FAX
by Hal Murray 04 Jul '99

04 Jul '99

> At the last NANOG several folks chuckled when I pointed out that > many real emergency plans include sending a FAX as a backup when > the phones don't work. I thought I would pass this news story along. Another item for the checklist is to know which of your phones bypass your local PBX so you can call out when it is sick. I think it's common for fax and/or modems to be setup that way.

1 0

Re: NSI/Internic operational announcement list
by Paul Vixie 03 Jul '99

03 Jul '99

SEAN(a)SDG.DRA.COM (Sean Donelan) writes: > It appears NSI had some trouble today, but I couldn't find any information > on their web site. I believe I'm still subscribe to rs-info(a)internic.net, > but I didn't see any notices from NSI. > > Did I just miss it? i don't think you missed it. the operators of the secondary COM servers were not informed of any of the problems until after my analysis was published, and by that time netsol had published a new and corrected COM zone. i'm NOT happy to have had to learn of it from non-netsol channels when it's clear that they knew something was happening. this was a highly operational issue and affected a lot of users. NANOG, or at least rs-info(a)internic.net, or at least the root name server operators, ought to have been told.

2 1